AyurvedGuru

In The 10th Chapter Of Sutra-Sthana There Is Depicted A Dialogue Between The Main Speaker Atreya And Maitreya.

Atreya Gives A Warning At The Ends Thus:-

“One Who Knows The Differential Diagnosis Between Curable And Incurable Diseases, As Also The Right Application, Will Not Fall Into Such Erroneous Mode Of Thinking As Maitreya And Other Did.

In The 12th Chapter Of Sutra-Sthana The Discourse Is Among The Rsis, Kusa, Sankrtyayana, Kumarasira Bhardwaja, Kankayana, Bahlika, Badisa, Dhamargava, Varyovida Rajarsi, Marici, Kapya And Atreya.

Each Of Them Discusses One Aspect Of The Subject And Atreya, The Presiding Sage, Links All The Aspects In The Integrating Form.

In Chapter 25th Of Sutra Sthana, Kasipati Vamaka Approaches The Assembly Of Rsis For The Solution Of A Question. Pariksi, Maudgalya, Saraloma, Varyovida, Hiranyaksa, Kusika, Kausika, Bhadarkapya, Bhardwaja, Kankayana, Bhiksu Atreya, Each Of These Propounds His Own Theory And Insists Tenaciously On Its Acceptance. The Presiding Sage Atreya Exhorts All Of Them To Be More Rational And Scientific And Gives His Authoritative Decision On The Subject.

Similarly, In Chapter 26 Th Of Sutra-Sthana, Nine Sages Meet And Each Propounds His Own Theory In The Discourse On The Categories Of Taste. Finally The Learned Atreya Expounds Giving The Decision In The Matter.

Those Who Advance Arguments And Counter Arguments As If They Were Finalities, Never In Fact Arrive At Any Conclusion, Going Round And Round Like The Man Who Sits On The Oil Press. Therefore Letting Go This Wordy Warfare, Apply Your Minds To The Essential Truth, But Without Dispersing The Obscuring Cloud (Of Passion) There Can Be No Proper Appreciations Of The Object That Is To Be Known.

In The 3rd Chapter Of Sarira-Sthana Again, There Is A Discourse Between Bhardwaja And Atreya.
Elaborate Rules And Regulations About The Concluding Of Such Meeting Are Given In Great Details In The Vimana Sthana Chapter Viii.

Reviewing The Matter And The Manner Of These Discourse And The Importance Attached To Such Meetings, One Feels That Atreya’s Treatise Must Have Been Composed During The Period When Such Disquisition Were The Prevalent System Of Establishing The Final Truth In A Matter Of Dispute. Thus Atreya’s Period Coincides With The Satapatha Period.

Taking Into View Of The External And Internal Evidence Supported By Historical Consistency We Are Led To Be Place Atreya In A Period Not Deflecting Much On Either Side Of The 8th Century B.C But Certainly Not Later Then 7th Century B.C.

Atreya, As A Teacher

As A Teacher Of Medicine, Atreya Is Of Very High Order Judged From The Methods He Adopted To Instruct His Disciple And Of The  Arrangement And Classification Of The Subjects And Medical Concepts. All The Parallel Treatise Such As Those Of Kasyapa, Harita And Bhela, Refer To Him As The Accredited Teacher And Authority On Medicine.

It Is Therefore Necessary That We Learn Of The Methods Of Instruction He Pursued In Achieving This Supremacy As A Teacher.

At The Beginning Of Each Lesson, He Categorically Announces The Definit Subject He Proposes To Expound. Then Often It Happens That The Disciples Headed By Agnivesha Put Inquiring Questions In Order To Spot Light The Salient Points Of The Subject Purposed. And The Teacher While Expounding These Salient Points Covers The Whole Field Of The Proposed Subject. Occasionally, There Are Intelligent Interjections By Agnivesha Asking For Clarification On Points, As For Example, When The Teacher Commends The Real Physician As Against The Quack, Agnivesha Asks, “How Are W To Know The Real Physician From The Quack? And A Most And A Most Impressive Delineation Of The Difference Between The Quack And The Real Physician Is Given By Atreya. Again After Proposing The Subject To Be Expounded, The Various Disciples Or The Sages And Learned Men Assembled About The Teacher, Are Invited To Offer Their Individual Views. The Great Discussions On The Subject Of Vata And Of Rasa Are Supreme Examples Of This Kind. After Listening To The Views Of Each Of The Learned Men Participating In The Discussion, Atreya Sums Up His Opinion Which Is Sometimes Categorically Offered And Sometimes Elaborated By Arguments And Illustrations. Though In Later Days There Obtained In India The Socratic Method Known As Teacher Disciple Dialogues Yet Atreya’s Cannot Be Called Such A Method. It Is In Its Form More Ancient And Related To The Brahmin Cal Method Of Discussion. Only, It Is Milder In Spirit Without The Bravado And Vehemence That Characterizes The Part Played By Exponents Like Yajnavalkya In The Debates Conducted Under The Patrinage Of King Janaka. There Is A True Spirit Of Enquiry And A Desire For Discovering And Accepting The Truth On A Subject Is Transparent In These Discussions, But No Desire To Assert Oneself And Score A Victory In Debate. This Became The Spirit Of A Later Day Though It Was Condemned By Atreya As Unworthy Of Good Men.

“In A Hostile Debate, One Should Speak Supported By Reason And Skill And Never Debate, Which Is Serious, Enrages Some People.

And There Is Nothing That An Enraged Man May Not Do Or Say, And Wise Man Never Commend A Quarrel Before An Assembly Of Good Men.

Throughout, In These Discussions, Atreya, Conducts Himself With Great Diginity, Composure And Understanding. He Listens To The Expositions Of The Different Views Of Scholars Assembled After Duly Weighing Them, Gives Out His Own Considered Opinion Which Is Invariably Accepted As Final By The Assembly. Occasionally He Warns His Disciples Against The Error Fallen Into By Any Of The Disputants, As For Example He Warned His Disciples And Others Present Against Falling Into The Same Error As Did Maitreya And Others Like Him On The Question Of Treatment And Non-Treatment Being Equal In Their Results.

Help

For More Information Please Contact To Our Website:
Www.Ayurvedguru.Com